It Came From the U.K.
British scientists are going to be allowed to research diseases using “human-animal” embryos, leading many to wonder what kind of path British medicine is going down: the way of Dr. Jonas Salk or Dr. Frankenstein.
They’re called “admixed” embryos, and feature putting human cell nuclei into animal eggs. The theoretical embryos wouldn’t be allowed to live for more than two weeks.
Like most of this kind of embryo-level research, critics are saying that not only does this kind of research cross some weird and immoral boundaries, but that the benefits of the research will be minimal. From the TimesOnline:
Edward Leigh, Conservative MP for Gainsborough, moving the amendment to ban all admixed embryos, said that mingling animal and human DNA crossed an “ultimate boundary”. He said that exaggerated claims were giving patients false hope and that the dangers of the research were unknown. “In many ways we are like children playing with landmines without any concept of the dangers of the technology we are handling,” he said.
Let’s say that the research was beneficial. There would still be a lot of moral issues to wrestle with, including:
Does a human-cow hybrid have a soul? Animals don’t have spiritual souls, but what exactly is something that’s half-human, half-cow? I don’t even know how to begin answering that.
If it does have a soul, is this embryo research amount to “humancow” abortion? I believe that life begins at conception. If a humancow has a soul, you’re killing them after two weeks. In American terms, what about the 50% human’s “right to life?”
Is it okay to “play God” in order to cure diseases? This is assuming this Frankenstein research is successful and helps to cure diseases. Do the ends justify the means?
Visit the BPN Political Discussion Boards
Did you like this post? Subscribe to the BipolarNation feed.
You can also receive the latest BipolarNation.com posts delivered to your e-mail inbox! Subscribe here.
The BipolarNation Robots Say You Might Also Like These Posts:
